Bills

Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 September 2018.)

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (11:10): I rise to speak in support of the Residential Parks (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018. A lot has changed since the Residential Parks Act 2007 came into effect. Following much consultation with park owners and residents, the Marshall government has taken their concerns and issues on board in the development of the legislation.

A primary aim of this legislation is to address the concerns about security of tenure in residential park agreements. This bill introduces new statutory requirements to protect residents. In my seat of Finniss, there are many large residential parks, such as Rosetta Village, which is in Victor Harbor, Seachange Village in Goolwa and Lakeside in Goolwa. There is some confusion, though. They are not retirement villages as covered by the Retirement Villages Regulations 2017 under the Retirement Villages Act 2016: they are part of this residential parks legislation. They do not have the same rights and expectations as those retirement villages under the Retirement Villages Act.

There are some very substantial differences and also very different costing structures in going into it, and I very much encourage all those who go into retirement living of some sort to investigate the different options and understand what they mean. Just because a name has the word 'village' in it does not mean it is covered by the Retirement Villages Act.

Fortunately, though, some of the concerns relating to residential parks as retirement living are being addressed in this bill. The proposed amendments aim to strike a fair balance between protecting the rights of residents and the interests of park owners, recognising the investment many residents have made in their homes. In a residential park, the residents actually own the bricks and mortar of the building that actually sits on the land. They do not own the land it sits on, but they do own the building itself.

In Victor Harbor, in particular, these buildings are bricks and mortar, so they are not very transportable. They cannot easily take them with them if they leave, so there are some very important things we need to look at. It is also becoming a very popular retirement living option because of the reduced costs associated with the retirement village options. We have seen this growth particularly in Queensland, but it is now very much occurring in South Australia and certainly in the electorate of Finniss.

The proposed amendments also provide for the increased disclosure of information to prospective purchasers and current residents, making sure that they know what is involved in the arrangements under their agreement. This is so important yet so simple. Much misunderstanding and dispute can be prevented with the provision of and search for basic information at the beginning of the process. It is good practice for vendors to ensure full disclosure; however, buyers cannot abrogate all their responsibilities either.

When considering such a significant purchase, often involving financing, it is just plain common sense to ensure you are completely aware of your rights and responsibilities; any conditions on the purchase or property and everything else which is pertinent, including that the property is not in an area prone to natural disasters like flooding, frequent storms or bushfires; that the property is not in an area frequented by heavy moving vehicles, that the property is not near a mine or a farm or other business operations which may result in noise or dust, if that is an issue for those wanting to move in.

Will the local council development plans allow you to carry out any ideas you have to renovate or otherwise alter the condition of the property? You need to give thought to all these. Is the rubbish collection schedule suitable? Does the property have a septic or is it connected to the main sewerage system? These are all things potential purchasers should consider. I raise these issues because my office has experienced many complaints from constituents who have purchased properties without looking into these details first. The expectations of people looking for a sea change or tree change are not always met. That is why it is so important to do the research before the decision is made.

Looking at the proposed changes themselves, under the current laws residential site agreements for a fixed term may be terminated at the end of the agreement with only 28 days' notice. It is proposed that residential site agreements for a fixed term will no longer be able to be terminated at the end of the agreement, for those agreements of more than five years, or if the resident has been a resident of the park for more than five years. Another change is that at the end of the fixed-term agreement residents are placed on periodic tenancy agreements, which can be terminated on no specific grounds with 90 days' notice.

It is proposed that for residents of more than five years, agreements will only be able to be terminated on statutory grounds and must be reviewed and reissued on the same terms and conditions, or new agreed conditions, with a further review date. If the owner proposes to change the terms of the agreement, 90 days' notice will be required prior to the expiry of an agreement. Penalties are proposed to ensure agreements comply with the act. It is proposed to expand the available statutory grounds for termination of the agreements to include a breach of the park rules which would form part of all site agreements or if the agreement closes or intends to be redeveloped.

If the park owner intends to redevelop the site, it is proposed that homes may be relocated to another site in the park or in a park owned by the same owner, if the resident agrees. The park owner may also offer to buy a home for an agreed price. If the resident and the owner are not able to reach an agreement, the resident or the owner may apply to the tribunal for resolution of the dispute. The bill proposes to introduce a waiver to this section if the resident and the owner agree.

As to the existing laws, if the residential park is sold, the new owner may terminate a residential park site agreement without specifying a ground for termination. It is proposed that this no longer be a ground for termination if the residential park is sold or otherwise transferred to a new owner. Another proposed change is for agreements to be terminated if a mortgagee takes possession of the residential park. Under the proposed reforms, if an owner becomes insolvent it is proposed that the mortgagee takes on the obligations as if they were park owner.

Currently, following the death of a resident the agreement is assigned with the park owner's consent. This is an important issue; we are talking about people who are retiring and who are in their later years of life, so it is something that occurs quite often in residential parks, particularly retirement parks, the variety we are talking about. This bill proposes that if the dwelling is to be sold by the estate, park owners will be given the first option to purchase the dwelling for an agreed amount but that the estate does not have to accept that offer. That gives people managing the estate of a deceased, a loved one, the opportunity of selling elsewhere and not necessarily just back to the park owners.

Residential parks laws currently provide that existing residents be given a Form J and a copy of any park rules, if in writing. This may happen only at the time of signing the agreement. The reform proposes that the current requirement to deliver that form at the beginning of the agreement is met, but it is also proposed that detailed disclosure statements and a site condition report, in a form approved by the commissioner, together with new education publications, be given to all prospective residents before signing new agreements or taking over any existing agreements. This is very much about making sure that everyone is informed on the agreement they are entering into and that they understand exactly what it covers.

Under existing laws, there is no cooling-off period. I believe it is extremely important that, with this legislation, we are proposing a 14-day cooling-off period. This will ensure prospective residents are not pressured and that they can seek advice to make sure they understand the agreement they are entering into. Often, moving into a retirement village or a residential park is a very stressful time; people are often moving from long-term family homes, and it is a very big decision for them. They need to make sure that they are happy with their decision and that they investigate it fully to ensure it is the right option for them.

At the moment, there is no requirement for park rules to be in writing or for residents to be notified of any change when they are amended. Another change proposed in this bill is that if there are any park rules in place, they will need to be in writing and form part of any agreement. Residents will also be advised of any changes to park rules. It is very important that people understand the environment they live in and what is required of them so that they can, first, meet the rules and also be happy with the rules governing where they are living. If the rules change and impinge on what they want to see in their park they may choose to relocate, so it is very important that they understand what the rules are.

Under the current act there is no requirement for a written plan for safety evacuations of the park, and the proposed change to this is very important. It is proposed that there will be a measure to ensure there is a safety evacuation plan and that that plan is reviewed every year. Many of the residential parks, particularly those in Finniss, have very narrow streets between homes and it is very easy for cars, etc., to block the access roads out of the parks.

It is very important that all the residents of these residential parks understand how they can negotiate a safe passage out during an emergency, that the evacuation plan is very clear and easily understood, and also that they understand there is an assembly point, so people can work out whether all the residents are safely out of these residential parks. Many of the residents are frail and may not have easy access out. If there is an evacuation occurring, we need to know whether there are people still inside. It is very important that they understand that and make sure the plans are reviewed on a regular basis.

Residents committees may be formed under the provisions of the current laws, but under the proposed reforms residents committees will be mandatory in all parks where there are more than 20 long-term residents. This is very important because many of the complaints that come into my office are about lack of communication and lack of understanding. If there were a residents committee mandated in all parks—there are some in my electorate that work well with the voluntary version—so there is a communication network available to the residents to communicate with the owners of the park to voice their concerns about issues, many of the minor concerns could be easily fixed. It is really important that this provision be in the bill.

Residential parks are very much a community. The people who reside in them develop strong bonds and friendships with each other. They are a very important part of the retirement options, particularly in the seat of Finniss, to allow people to settle into an environment where they feel safe and protected. We also need to make sure that the regulations and laws around residential parks allow people to feel safe and protected.

There is an enormous growth in this area, with many more of these parks being developed. We are certainly seeing many people enjoying that life. These parks, particularly in Finniss, are all of a very similar age and over time they are going to age more and will require maintenance and care to keep them upgraded to a standard where people want to reside in them. We need to make sure that the residents committee can have conversations about these concerns to make sure that everything is kept up to a standard where people feel like it is the place they want to be.

I thank very much the minister for bringing the bill to the house. It is very important to the area of Finniss. However, it does not apply only to these retirement homes; it also applies to caravan parks, etc., that have permanent residents, which also need to be covered by the bill. I think it has gone a long way to getting the balance right. I have certainly had conversations with representatives from the residential park owners of Finniss, and they are very supportive of these changes. They think they go pretty well to all points of where they need them to go and have very much appreciated the bill being brought before the house. I would like to commend the bill to house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.